Purchaser after initiation of ceiling proceedings has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings or the order removing their name from the revenue records.

B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is chal#31;lenging the order dated 20-11-1999 passed by the respondent No. 3-Prescribed Au#31;thority at Mahoba by which his name has been removed from the revenue records over Gata No. 240 area 1 .44 acres.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that while proceedings of ceiling had al#31;ready been initiated by the State Gov#31;ernment against the original tenure holder Shri Jayendra Singh, the petitioner purchased a portion of the land in respect of which ceiling proceeding had already been initiated being Gata No. 240 area 1.44 acres situate in Mauza Kulpahar Dis#31;trict Mahoba. On the basis of the sale-deed dated 26-5-1975 the petitioner applied for mutation and mutation was also allowed on 26-3-1996.

3. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that during the mutation proceedings it was well within his knowledge that the land which he had purchased was under ceiling proceedings. The petitioner has sought to derive sup#31;port from an order passed in writ petition No. 6548 of 1988 filed by the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 who are stated to be the sons of Jayendra Singh. Copy of the order of the High Court dated 3-5-1996 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and from a reading of the same it is seen that the said writ petition was filed for setting aside the order dated 7-11-1977 rejecting a restoration application oi respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. There is no mention in the order of the High Court regarding any ceiling proceedings or with regard to the land in question purchased by the peti#31;tioner and, therefore, the said order in my opinion is of no assistance to the petitioner in any manner in this case.

4. I have heard Shri M.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel for the respon#31;dent Nos. 1 and 2. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 though the case is listed peremptorily today.

5. From a perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the name of the peti#31;tioner has been removed from the revenue records in respect of Gata No. 240 area 1.44 acres. According to the petitioner this land was purchased by him through a reg#31;istered sale-deed on 26-5-1975 from the original tenure holder Jayendra Singh. However, the petitioner applied for muta#31;tion in the year 1996 and the mutation was allowed on 26-3-1996. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner had admitted that during the mutation proceed#31;ings he was fully aware of the fact that in respect of the land which he had pur#31;chased ceiling proceedings were already pending. The original tenure holder has not challenged the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Hold#31;ings Act, 1960.

6. The petitioner being a purchaser of the plot in question after the ceiling pro#31;ceedings have already been initiated has absolutely no locus to challenge either the ceiling proceedings or the impugned order by which his name has been re#31;moved from the revenue records.

7. The petition lacks merit and is ac#31;cordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.

_____________

Click Here to Read the rest of this document